User:Laleeibssa/Delmas Treason Trial/Davitg13 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Laleeibssa
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Laleeibssa/Delmas Treason Trial

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Y
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Y
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Y
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Y

Lead evaluation
The lead seems well-written and everything is added to fit the changes made. It is clear, insightful and concise. It does not seem to include and additional information that is not included.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Y
 * Is the content added up-to-date?Y
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? N

Content evaluation
The content seems relevant and up-to-date with no issues. However, I do think that there could be more details incorporated regrind potential criticisms, comments, reactions form the general public etc. after the trial which could add more insightful information on the topic and what makes it important. Also if it set and precedents that could also be a good point of incorporation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?Y
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?N
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?N
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?N

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is quite neutral and balanced. Given that this is a trial, the content presents both sides in equal amounts. It is not bias and does not favor one or the other. It seems quite factual and the tone is very neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?Y
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?Y
 * Are the sources current?N
 * Check a few links. Do they work?Y

Sources and references evaluation
While the source is insightful, trustworthy and a working source, I would perhaps look into more recent sources and diversify the choice of sources to reflect a greater variety on the topic.I think there could be some later reflections on the event or later reactions, perhaps something on how it may have served as a precedent etc. Anything that could incorporate something more recent.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?Y
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?N
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?N

Organization evaluation
The organization is great and the writing is well-written with no errors that I could catch. Everything seems to flow well in an organized manner and nothing seems to be off in terms of the structure of the article. Perhaps later, there could be more sections etc.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Y
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article has greatly improved as it went from simply having a lead to having many subsections worth mentioning. You incorporated great details such as the opposing sides, their arguments etc. all of which are great additions. Strengths include the writing, organization, style all of which are great and should not be changed! I think a potential improvement could be to add more and more recent sources that could diversify the list and add more perspective to it.